Bank of Korea Doubles Down on Bank-Led Stablecoins as Deposit Token Pilots Advance
The Bank of Korea (BOK) has reaffirmed its position that won-denominated stablecoins should be issued through bank-led consortiums, while simultaneously advancing deposit token pilots into new real-world use cases. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs with exposure to South Korean digital assets, this signals that the regulatory perimeter around Korean stablecoins is tightening in a specific direction, and that the classification, custody, and reporting obligations attached to these instruments will reflect bank-sector ownership structures. Firms that rely on capable crypto accounting software to track stablecoin positions need to watch how these structural choices translate into accounting treatment and AML obligations.
What the Bank of Korea Actually Said
In materials submitted to the National Assembly's finance committee, the BOK set out two clear priorities. First, any won-denominated stablecoin should be issued initially by bank-led consortiums, not by non-bank technology companies or crypto-native issuers. Second, a statutory policy body involving all relevant regulatory agencies should oversee the sector. These are not new sentiments from the central bank, but the formal submission to the finance committee gives them legislative weight and adds pressure on lawmakers drafting the Digital Asset Basic Act.
The bank-led consortium requirement
The BOK's insistence on bank majority ownership of stablecoin issuers is the central sticking point in the broader legislative debate. The ruling Democratic Party had previously attempted to advance stablecoin issuance under existing financial laws, but key questions about issuer eligibility remained unresolved. The BOK's submission reinforces its view that banks, as regulated deposit-taking institutions subject to prudential oversight, are the appropriate anchor for won stablecoin issuance. From an accounting and compliance standpoint, this matters because the legal structure of the issuer determines how the stablecoin's backing assets are held, audited, and reported.
The statutory policy body proposal
The BOK also called for a cross-agency statutory body to coordinate stablecoin policy. This would bring together the central bank, the Financial Services Commission, and other relevant regulators. For firms managing clients with Korean digital asset exposure, such a body would be the primary source of interpretive guidance on classification questions, reserve requirements, and AML rules. Accounting teams should track its establishment closely, as its first guidance documents will shape how stablecoin positions are treated on Korean-entity balance sheets.
Deposit Token Pilots: Scope and Timeline
Separate from the stablecoin debate, the BOK confirmed it will expand deposit token pilots in the second half of the year. The planned use cases include government subsidy payments, voucher schemes, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and broader real-world transactions for the general public.
What deposit tokens are and why the distinction matters
Deposit tokens are digital tokens that represent a claim on a commercial bank deposit. They are distinct from stablecoins in a legally significant way: a deposit token is a liability of the issuing commercial bank, sitting on that bank's balance sheet and covered by existing depositor protections and prudential rules. A stablecoin, by contrast, may be issued by a non-bank entity with a different reserve and redemption structure. This distinction has direct accounting consequences. Under IFRS 9, a deposit token held by a corporate entity would likely be classified as a financial asset measured at amortised cost, whereas the treatment of a non-bank stablecoin is considerably less settled, particularly in jurisdictions without a dedicated stablecoin accounting standard.
Government subsidy and voucher use cases
The inclusion of government subsidy payments and voucher schemes in the pilot scope is notable for accounting firms advising public-sector clients or companies that receive government support. If deposit tokens become the vehicle for disbursing subsidies, the recognition, measurement, and disclosure of those receipts will need to reflect the token's legal character as a bank deposit claim. Firms should begin mapping their clients' exposure to Korean government payment flows and identifying whether existing chart-of-accounts structures can accommodate tokenized deposit instruments.
The Legislative Standoff and Its Practical Consequences
South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act has been delayed by a combination of policy disagreements and external factors. The government had indicated to President Lee Jae-myung in January that it aimed to pass the act by the first quarter of 2026, but that timeline has slipped. Contributing factors cited in local reporting include geopolitical disruptions, local elections, and procedural delays in reorganizing the National Assembly's committee structure.
The stablecoin issuer question, specifically who holds majority ownership of issuers and under what prudential rules, remains the most contested element. Until it is resolved, firms face a period of regulatory ambiguity that has direct consequences for how Korean won stablecoin positions are classified, disclosed, and audited.
Accounting implications of the current ambiguity
Where the legal framework is unsettled, accounting teams typically face three challenges. The first is classification: without a statutory definition of a won stablecoin's legal character, preparers must exercise judgment on whether it constitutes a financial asset, an electronic money instrument, or another category entirely. The second is impairment: if the stablecoin is not backed by a bank-regulated entity, the credit risk assessment is more complex and may require additional disclosure under IFRS 7. The third is going-concern: for entities whose business model depends on non-bank stablecoin issuance in Korea, the BOK's position materially affects the viability of that model and may require disclosure in financial statements.
AML and KYC considerations
The BOK's preference for bank-led issuers also has AML implications. Banks in South Korea are subject to the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, which imposes customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, and record-keeping obligations. If won stablecoins are issued through bank consortiums, those AML obligations apply at the issuer level from day one. For accounting firms conducting AML audits or advising clients on virtual asset service provider (VASP) compliance, the bank-led model simplifies some questions about which AML regime applies, while raising new ones about how token holders are identified and how transaction monitoring is conducted on-chain.
For further context on how stablecoin structural choices affect compliance obligations in other jurisdictions, see our coverage of stablecoin accounting and MiCA compliance considerations and the latest Asia crypto regulation developments affecting accounting teams.
What Accounting Firms and CFOs Should Do Now
The situation in Korea is moving, even if legislation is delayed. The deposit token pilots will generate real transactions, real balance sheet entries, and real compliance obligations for participating entities. Accounting teams should not wait for the Digital Asset Basic Act to pass before preparing.
Immediate steps
First, map client exposure. Identify which clients hold won stablecoins, participate in Korean deposit token pilots, or have Korean counterparties that do. Second, review classification policies. Existing accounting policies for digital assets may not distinguish between deposit tokens and stablecoins. That distinction now needs to be explicit. Third, assess AML documentation. If clients interact with Korean won stablecoins issued outside a bank structure, the AML risk profile of that instrument is higher and documentation should reflect that. Fourth, monitor the National Assembly's finance committee proceedings. The BOK's submission is a formal legislative input, and the committee's response will signal which way the issuer-eligibility debate is heading.
Firms using crypto bookkeeping software or broader digital asset accounting software should verify that their systems can distinguish deposit tokens from stablecoins at the instrument level, since the accounting treatment, AML classification, and disclosure requirements differ. Generic crypto asset categories are insufficient for this level of granularity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bank of Korea's position on won stablecoin issuance?
The BOK has formally called for won-denominated stablecoins to be issued initially by bank-led consortiums, with a statutory cross-agency policy body overseeing the sector. This position was set out in materials submitted to the National Assembly's finance committee in July 2026.
How are deposit tokens different from stablecoins for accounting purposes?
A deposit token represents a claim on a commercial bank deposit and sits on the issuing bank's balance sheet. Under IFRS 9, it would typically be classified as a financial asset at amortised cost. A non-bank stablecoin's classification is less settled and depends on the specific reserve and redemption structure, making judgment and disclosure more complex.
What are the AML implications of the bank-led stablecoin model?
If won stablecoins are issued through bank consortiums, South Korea's existing bank-sector AML obligations under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information apply from the outset. This includes customer due diligence and suspicious transaction reporting at the issuer level, which simplifies some compliance questions for counterparties but raises new ones around on-chain transaction monitoring.
Why has South Korea's Digital Asset Basic Act been delayed?
The act's timeline, originally targeting the first quarter of 2026, has slipped due to a combination of policy disagreements over stablecoin issuer eligibility, geopolitical disruptions, local elections, and delays in reorganizing the National Assembly's committee structure.
What should accounting firms do while the legislation remains unresolved?
Firms should map client exposure to Korean won stablecoins and deposit tokens, update digital asset classification policies to distinguish between the two instrument types, review AML documentation for any non-bank stablecoin exposure, and monitor the National Assembly's finance committee for signals on the issuer-eligibility question. Crypto accounting software used by the firm should be capable of recording these instruments at the individual instrument level with separate classification logic.
Source: Cointelegraph